What If Giant Space-Based Solar Panels Could Beam Unlimited Power To The Earth?http://www.businessinsider.com/space-based-solar-panels-could-power-earth-2014-7/comments
en-usWed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 -0500Fri, 09 Dec 2016 20:31:00 -0500Katie Jenningshttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/53f371eceab8eae740d01608Greg HTue, 19 Aug 2014 11:49:00 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53f371eceab8eae740d01608
agree with berick's comment. if a single launch is north of 20 million dollars, and we're looking at several hundred launches to get an array of that size into space, and several hundred of hours spent sending astronauts up there to assemble the pieces together, a few hundred million wont cover the tab. "Hundreds of billions" is the only financial number that makes sense.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53ec8c59ecad04a752a65d7eEvil OneThu, 14 Aug 2014 06:15:53 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53ec8c59ecad04a752a65d7e
Sharks with frickin laser beams attached to their heads!http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53ec6b3eecad0404327961d8boBK7IQThu, 14 Aug 2014 03:54:38 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53ec6b3eecad0404327961d8
Hey ! Solar (light) energy is ALREADY radio waves ! (electromagnetic radiation) and we already receive them on earth with solar panels (photovoltaic modules) at approximately 1kW of power per square meter of area.... Doing this could maybe lower the frequency of light energy so that it might cut through some clouds a bit better or MAYBE beam some energy to places that are dark BUT it will also lose a LOT of energy in the conversion. Why go to the expense and trouble to do this when we already have a plentiful amount of solar energy showing up on earth ? This wireless fusion energy transmission has already been done for us. Just gotta make better use of it or store some of it for use at night.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53eb7b21ecad047113ac4439lou.washington1Wed, 13 Aug 2014 10:50:09 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53eb7b21ecad047113ac4439
I love the idea of paying for this via advertising space sold on the solar arrays. These would be visible from earth of course. Just imagine, no more distracting stars and finally, we could be rid of that hideous moon.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53ea6d7e6da811d80ebfd808Maury MarkowitzTue, 12 Aug 2014 15:39:42 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53ea6d7e6da811d80ebfd808
This idea almost certainly can not work. You lose about 50% of the power on the way down from space, and about 50% of the panel lifetime due to the harsh conditions in space. There's about 5 times as much sunlight in GEO, so that means for all that money you spend shipping stuff up, you get, after all, about 25% more power. You can do the same by leaving the panels on the ground and putting them on a day tracker, and save yourself billions of dollars.
You can run the numbers yourself, it's actually very easy. Try any scenario you want and the outcome is basically the same every time. Unless you assume some really weird inputs, like magical energy transmission or someone going and significantly cleaning up all of space, you end up with about the same amount of energy while spending a LOT more money.
Here's the formulas. Enjoy!
<a href="http://matter2energy.wordpress.com/2012/03/17/the-maury-equation-redux/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" >http://matter2energy.wordpress.com/2012/03/17/the-maury-equation-redux/</a>http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53ea1a8ceab8ea822be15503RD BlakesleeTue, 12 Aug 2014 09:45:48 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53ea1a8ceab8ea822be15503
As with any powerful "harnessed" energy source, accident scenarios need to be addressed..
If the beam goes off-target, anything it hits will be incinerated.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53e94c8769beddfc0fa02e99Doug in VirginiaMon, 11 Aug 2014 19:06:47 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53e94c8769beddfc0fa02e99
This sounds like a problem somehow:
"The image above isn't to scale. The sandwich modules would be about 10 feet long on a side and about 80,000 would be needed. The array of sandwich modules would be about the length of nine football fields, or more than 1/2 a mile long. This is about nine times bigger than the International Space Station."
Cost of the international space station: $150B. Billion with a B. Not "hundreds of millions."
From this writeup: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power#Solar_concentrator" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power#Solar_concentrator</a>
"To give an idea of the scale of the problem, assuming a solar panel mass of 20 kg per kilowatt (without considering the mass of the supporting structure, antenna, or any significant mass reduction of any focusing mirrors) a 4 GW power station would weigh about 80,000 metric tons, all of which would, in current circumstances, be launched from the Earth. Very lightweight designs could likely achieve 1 kg/kW,[55] meaning 4,000 metric tons for the solar panels for the same 4 GW capacity station. This would be the equivalent of between 40 and 150 heavy-lift launch vehicle (HLLV) launches to send the material to low earth orbit, where it would likely be converted into subassembly solar arrays, which then could use high-efficiency ion-engine style rockets to (slowly) reach GEO (Geostationary orbit). With an estimated serial launch cost for shuttle-based HLLVs of $500 million to $800 million, and launch costs for alternative HLLVs at $78 million, total launch costs would range between $11 billion (low cost HLLV, low weight panels) and $320 billion ('expensive' HLLV, heavier panels)."http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53e941cc6da811c636273a36mandinkaMon, 11 Aug 2014 18:21:00 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53e941cc6da811c636273a36
How would you get the satellite up since only Russia has the capability?
With 15 years of O temp increases sounds like its just more chicken littlehttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/53e94030eab8ea1637cb91bbtroobleMon, 11 Aug 2014 18:14:08 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53e94030eab8ea1637cb91bb
Neat but probably not necessary. We have plenty of space here on Earth, for 1% of the cost. Putting stuff into space is incredibly expensive.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53e93f2fecad046b0435c062SugarBlaze22Mon, 11 Aug 2014 18:09:51 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53e93f2fecad046b0435c062
Love the idea. How would you keep asteroids from wrecking it though? Especially with it being that big.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53e91d09ecad04b60235c05eberickMon, 11 Aug 2014 15:44:09 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53e91d09ecad04b60235c05e
A lovely idea, I hope it comes to pass, I hope we don't discover any crippling drawbacks, but....your cost estimates are hallucinations. "It's hard to say what exactly the full-scale implementation of a space-based solar power system would cost, but it would likely be hundreds of millions of dollars." That's what the Russians charge just to send 3 or 4 astronauts up a single time. I'm sure you're actually talking about hundreds of billions or trillions. And yet, that still may be a better deal that current power sources down here.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53e91b376bb3f7426235c05ejimmy mactheknifeMon, 11 Aug 2014 15:36:23 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53e91b376bb3f7426235c05e
TURNING the earth into one gigantic microwave oven in the process!http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53e912d6ecad04775435c060JMcDMon, 11 Aug 2014 15:00:38 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53e912d6ecad04775435c060
Blah, blah, stick head in sand. Blah, blah, watch Fox News.
But the comet-ice one is a new one, thanks. I had a good laugh.
How inventive these coal-funded propaganda think tanks are! What does conservation of energy have to do with anything? The Earth isn't a closed system.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53e91202ecad04c45335c05fNice manMon, 11 Aug 2014 14:57:06 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53e91202ecad04c45335c05f
Yeah, at first it was all global warming, which is the planet heating up, but then they changed it to climate change, which is natural. i know they just want to profit from donationshttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/53e90cbfecad04e43f35c05eThey are lyingMon, 11 Aug 2014 14:34:39 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53e90cbfecad04e43f35c05e
The liberal idiots are still perpetuating their lies.
Remember...
-These are the same liberal idiots who said we were heading to an ice age back in the 1970s.
-These are the same liberal idiots who said we were warming uncontrollably in the 1990s.
We haven't warmed in 17 years.
-These are the same liberal idiots who said the Arctic ice would be melted by 2013.
It grew 50% last year.
-These are the same liberal idiots who have been caught lying about global warming.
See the ClimateGate 1.0 and 2.0 emails.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53e904ae6da8111002273a36The WatcherMon, 11 Aug 2014 14:00:14 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53e904ae6da8111002273a36
The ocean is rising no faster than the comet-ice is adding, the Glaciers and Polar Ice thickness is increasing and weather is less extreme than normal.
But sure, let's add energy that normally doesn't normally make its way into the atmosphere, that's an awesome idea.
Does anyone at BI have the slightest concept of conservation of energy or Newton?